CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Culture & Entertainment › Movies › Human Rights Film Festival (Feb 8-13)

Human Rights Film Festival (Feb 8-13)

Started by Amanda Nguyen5 · · 👁 4 views · 60 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Amanda Nguyen5ruggedmarlin15Frank Garcia85Joseph Lee3Linda Parker2stormygardener83Harold Howard6feralgardener59Timothy Wells6dustyseal21Carl Sullivan6rustyseal40Grace Carter2Matthew Gomez5crimsonmarlin14Mark Smith56
Amanda Nguyen5 Amanda Nguyen5 Active MemberOP
134 messages
joined Dec 2007
#1 ·
First off, I’m putting out an SOS to all you almighty moderators: please don't move this over to the "Announcements" section. This isn't just a quick heads-up. This thread covers the entire project from start to finish—it's meant for the announcements, the follow-up comments, the impressions, and eventually, the big debates. Let's keep it all in one place!
And another thing—the stuff in the sticky threads is way harder to read than it is here. It's like half the size!

Page Check out this link for the Human Rights Film Festival! It's honestly such a great resource if you're into films that actually tackle the big stuff. Definitely worth a look. There really should be way more content on this page. That’s what they say.

The 5th Human Rights Film Festival.

Whether people realize it or not—and honestly, sometimes even with the law backing them up—human rights get violated, ignored, or just completely overlooked all the time. We’ve been debating and redefining what these rights actually mean for centuries. That’s why the Human Rights Film Festival matters. It’s a chance to step back, rethink everything, and see the world through a totally different lens. We’re hitting the big five this year, which is pretty huge! This is easily the most inclusive festival in the city. We’ve lined up over thirty films—everything from heavy-hitting documentaries and features to short films, and yeah, we’re even throwing in a classic Hollywood musical just for fun. The HRFF is all about tackling those deep ideological debates and giving a voice to the marginalized, the silenced, and the perspectives that usually go unnoticed. Plus, we'll have some heavy-hitting guests, panel discussions, and a killer lineup of live music to keep things moving.

The festival is happening this year from February 8th through the 13th over at the Europe cinema!

The festival kicks off with Emilia Estevez’s “Bobby.” It’s an adaptation centered on the assassination of Robert Kennedy, and honestly, I have no clue why this movie skipped over our local theaters and festivals despite all the massive praise it got from critics and audiences alike. It’s a heavy-hitting critique of the social and political chaos gripping America in the late 60s, blending gritty archival footage with fictional portraits played by Hollywood legends. Looking at the rest of the lineup—which is a wild mix of genres, lengths, and origins—there are a few standouts you can't miss. First up is John Gianvit’s “Motive for Profit and the Whispering Wind.” It’s visually stunning, radical, and a total, uncompromising elegy for American political history. Critics are calling his style "anti-Michael Moore," which is a pretty bold claim. Then there’s “Why Didn’t Anyone Tell Me It Would Be This Bad in Afghanistan?” by the contemporary Dutch enfant terrible Cyrus Frisch. It’s a deeply subjective psychological drama and actually holds the title of the first feature film shot entirely on a mobile phone. If you want something different, check out Alex Cox’s “Trackers 2.0.” It’s a minimalist social satire that plays with Western tropes and B-movies; the characters even dive into things like Charlton Heston’s role during the war in Iraq. Finally, we have “Landscape Production,” a documentary featuring the lens of the famous artist Edward Burtynski. He has this incredible way of capturing both the beauty and the sheer strangeness of landscapes shaped by massive, permanent industrialization.

The side program dives deep into "female authorship" through the lens of film history. We’re looking at twelve different directors who, from the 1920s all the way to today, have dared to treat women as actual subjects. It’s about seeing them as complex individuals—full of their own unique perspectives—instead of just being used as objects to fuel some big cinematic spectacle. It’s a quick, diverse journey through how bodies, emotions, desires, joy, drama, oppression, and pure logic are portrayed when seen through a woman's eyes.

We’ve got a special guest joining this part of the program: Hito Steyerl. She’s an incredible film and video artist, plus a brilliant theorist. Her essays and documentary works dive deep into post-colonial critique, tackling the heavy stuff like globalization, migration, racism, and nationalism within the cultural and political landscape of the US. It's going to be intense.
.


There isn't a whole lot on this site, honestly. But hey, at least you can grab the essentials—you can download the full program as a PDF.

There’s a ton of good stuff on the lineup—honestly, a few absolute gems that are totally worth your time.

I’d have to pick the older stuff, specifically those classics by Varda and Chytilová—you know, like "Happy Accidents" or "Fruit of Paradise."
You’ve got your absolute classics in there—think Deren or Dulac—but then you’ve also got some fresh new stuff like Potter. It's a solid mix.
Word on the street is that De Palma’s latest stuff is pretty easy to skip. Honestly? I'm fine with that. But if you were one of those people obsessed with "Passion of Joan of Arc"—which, let's face it, was such a masterpiece when we saw it back in the day during that local film series—you actually have something worth watching coming up. We’re talking about the new Ulrich Seidl flick, "Import/Export." It’s getting huge praise, and I think it's definitely worth the hype.
Sokurov, the guy behind that modern classic "Russian Ark," is showing his new flick "Aleksandra." Honestly, it’d also be pretty cool to catch "Bobby"—you know, that Emilia Estevez project. For some weird reason, it completely skipped our theaters here (and video stores too, if I recall correctly).
I haven't really followed Aaltonen’s work, unfortunately, but out of these recent picks, the new Alex Cox movie might actually be worth your time. People over at PBS got a taste of his style a few months back during his film night, where they showed the cult classic "Repo Man." His newest one, "Tracers 2.0," is basically a parody of Westerns and B-movies—the title pretty much gives it away.
Also, Arzner and Sagan are definitely must-sees for any real cinephile.

The biggest pro is definitely these older films you don't get to see every day. Plus, getting a free ticket is a huge win, even if it does feel a little bit cheap sometimes.
The massive downside to this whole festival, though, is that it clashes perfectly with the Antonioni series running over at the local independent cinema—specifically those last three films from his famous tetralogy (originally a trilogy). It's such a huge bummer because the entire month of January was totally empty for screenings (except for that winning cycle at Europe toward the end of the month). Now, suddenly, at the start of February, you've got Antonioni competing with an awesome Human Rights Film Festival. And we all know this is exactly when the heavy hitters hit the big screens right before awards season—this time it's "There Will Be Blood" and "No Country for Old Men."
And then there's February itself. It's cat month and finals season for students, who are exactly the people these festivals are supposed to target. That's another strike against it.

I guess we'll just have to find a way to squeeze it all in somehow.
ruggedmarlin15 ruggedmarlin15 Active Member
67 messages
joined Oct 2005
#2 ·
Amanda Nguyen5 said:First off, I’m putting out an SOS to all you almighty moderators: please don't move this over to the "Announcements" section. This isn't just a quick heads-up. This thread covers the entire project from start to finish—it's meant for the announcements, the follow-up comments, the impressions, and eventually, the big debates. Let's keep it all in one place!
And another thing—the stuff in the sticky threads is way harder to read than it is here. It's like half the size!

Page Check out this link for the Human Rights Film Festival! It's honestly such a great resource if you're into films that actually tackle the big stuff. Definitely worth a look. There really should be way more content on this page. That’s what they say.

The 5th Human Rights Film Festival.

Whether people realize it or not—and honestly, sometimes even with the law backing them up—human rights get violated, ignored, or just completely overlooked all the time. We’ve been debating and redefining what these rights actually mean for centuries. That’s why the Human Rights Film Festival matters. It’s a chance to step back, rethink everything, and see the world through a totally different lens. We’re hitting the big five this year, which is pretty huge! This is easily the most inclusive festival in the city. We’ve lined up over thirty films—everything from heavy-hitting documentaries and features to short films, and yeah, we’re even throwing in a classic Hollywood musical just for fun. The HRFF is all about tackling those deep ideological debates and giving a voice to the marginalized, the silenced, and the perspectives that usually go unnoticed. Plus, we'll have some heavy-hitting guests, panel discussions, and a killer lineup of live music to keep things moving.

The festival is happening this year from February 8th through the 13th over at the Europe cinema!

The festival kicks off with Emilia Estevez’s “Bobby.” It’s an adaptation centered on the assassination of Robert Kennedy, and honestly, I have no clue why this movie skipped over our local theaters and festivals despite all the massive praise it got from critics and audiences alike. It’s a heavy-hitting critique of the social and political chaos gripping America in the late 60s, blending gritty archival footage with fictional portraits played by Hollywood legends. Looking at the rest of the lineup—which is a wild mix of genres, lengths, and origins—there are a few standouts you can't miss. First up is John Gianvit’s “Motive for Profit and the Whispering Wind.” It’s visually stunning, radical, and a total, uncompromising elegy for American political history. Critics are calling his style "anti-Michael Moore," which is a pretty bold claim. Then there’s “Why Didn’t Anyone Tell Me It Would Be This Bad in Afghanistan?” by the contemporary Dutch enfant terrible Cyrus Frisch. It’s a deeply subjective psychological drama and actually holds the title of the first feature film shot entirely on a mobile phone. If you want something different, check out Alex Cox’s “Trackers 2.0.” It’s a minimalist social satire that plays with Western tropes and B-movies; the characters even dive into things like Charlton Heston’s role during the war in Iraq. Finally, we have “Landscape Production,” a documentary featuring the lens of the famous artist Edward Burtynski. He has this incredible way of capturing both the beauty and the sheer strangeness of landscapes shaped by massive, permanent industrialization.

The side program dives deep into "female authorship" through the lens of film history. We’re looking at twelve different directors who, from the 1920s all the way to today, have dared to treat women as actual subjects. It’s about seeing them as complex individuals—full of their own unique perspectives—instead of just being used as objects to fuel some big cinematic spectacle. It’s a quick, diverse journey through how bodies, emotions, desires, joy, drama, oppression, and pure logic are portrayed when seen through a woman's eyes.

We’ve got a special guest joining this part of the program: Hito Steyerl. She’s an incredible film and video artist, plus a brilliant theorist. Her essays and documentary works dive deep into post-colonial critique, tackling the heavy stuff like globalization, migration, racism, and nationalism within the cultural and political landscape of the US. It's going to be intense.
.


There isn't a whole lot on this site, honestly. But hey, at least you can grab the essentials—you can download the full program as a PDF.

There’s a ton of good stuff on the lineup—honestly, a few absolute gems that are totally worth your time.

I’d have to pick the older stuff, specifically those classics by Varda and Chytilová—you know, like "Happy Accidents" or "Fruit of Paradise."
You’ve got your absolute classics in there—think Deren or Dulac—but then you’ve also got some fresh new stuff like Potter. It's a solid mix.
Word on the street is that De Palma’s latest stuff is pretty easy to skip. Honestly? I'm fine with that. But if you were one of those people obsessed with "Passion of Joan of Arc"—which, let's face it, was such a masterpiece when we saw it back in the day during that local film series—you actually have something worth watching coming up. We’re talking about the new Ulrich Seidl flick, "Import/Export." It’s getting huge praise, and I think it's definitely worth the hype.
Sokurov, the guy behind that modern classic "Russian Ark," is showing his new flick "Aleksandra." Honestly, it’d also be pretty cool to catch "Bobby"—you know, that Emilia Estevez project. For some weird reason, it completely skipped our theaters here (and video stores too, if I recall correctly).
I haven't really followed Aaltonen’s work, unfortunately, but out of these recent picks, the new Alex Cox movie might actually be worth your time. People over at PBS got a taste of his style a few months back during his film night, where they showed the cult classic "Repo Man." His newest one, "Tracers 2.0," is basically a parody of Westerns and B-movies—the title pretty much gives it away.
Also, Arzner and Sagan are definitely must-sees for any real cinephile.

The biggest pro is definitely these older films you don't get to see every day. Plus, getting a free ticket is a huge win, even if it does feel a little bit cheap sometimes.
The massive downside to this whole festival, though, is that it clashes perfectly with the Antonioni series running over at the local independent cinema—specifically those last three films from his famous tetralogy (originally a trilogy). It's such a huge bummer because the entire month of January was totally empty for screenings (except for that winning cycle at Europe toward the end of the month). Now, suddenly, at the start of February, you've got Antonioni competing with an awesome Human Rights Film Festival. And we all know this is exactly when the heavy hitters hit the big screens right before awards season—this time it's "There Will Be Blood" and "No Country for Old Men."
And then there's February itself. It's cat month and finals season for students, who are exactly the people these festivals are supposed to target. That's another strike against it.

I guess we'll just have to find a way to squeeze it all in somehow.

I don't mean to start an argument here, but I wouldn't call that a "huge drawback" for the whole festival. No cultural event has an absolute monopoly on scheduling, and there's always going to be some overlap with other things happening.

As far as the programming goes, I think it's looking pretty interesting...
Amanda Nguyen5 Amanda Nguyen5 Active MemberOP
134 messages
joined Dec 2007
#3 ·
ruggedmarlin15 said:I don't mean to start an argument here, but I wouldn't call that a "huge drawback" for the whole festival. No cultural event has an absolute monopoly on scheduling, and there's always going to be some overlap with other things happening.

As far as the programming goes, I think it's looking pretty interesting...


You make a fair point, but honestly, I'm right there with you.
January was basically a total wasteland for cinema—nothing but some Australian and European stuff at the very end of the month. Then suddenly, out of nowhere in February, we get two absolute gems like the Human Rights Watch Film Festival and an Antonioni showcase. What's next? A Verve retrospective playing at Lincoln Center during the height of the Felliniesque era?
Amanda Nguyen5 Amanda Nguyen5 Active MemberOP
134 messages
joined Dec 2007
#4 ·
Amanda Nguyen5 said:You make a fair point, but honestly, I'm right there with you.
January was basically a total wasteland for cinema—nothing but some Australian and European stuff at the very end of the month. Then suddenly, out of nowhere in February, we get two absolute gems like the Human Rights Watch Film Festival and an Antonioni showcase. What's next? A Verve retrospective playing at Lincoln Center during the height of the Felliniesque era?

Guess I’m talking too much.

By the time Fellini rolls around, we'll be at the Sundance Film Festival.
Frank Garcia85 Frank Garcia85 Newcomer
4 messages
joined Jan 2013
#5 ·
Why would you ever skip Palm Springs...🤷
Joseph Lee3 Joseph Lee3 Active Member
113 messages
joined May 2005
#6 ·
a Václav Havel? Honestly, I’m feeling pretty let down... though maybe it’s just too early to tell. I might get a chance to catch it in Prague sometime. There was a premiere just the other day, but since there were no subtitles, I’m terrified of being bored out of my mind... hopefully it makes its way to our local theaters during one of the next big releases.

I was really hoping this could actually get under the skin of Europe... 😢
Amanda Nguyen5 Amanda Nguyen5 Active MemberOP
134 messages
joined Dec 2007
#7 ·
up up

today we're talking "Bobby"
Linda Parker2 Linda Parker2 Member
11 messages
joined Jan 2008
#8 ·
Where are all the comments? Come on, people—I can't even make up my own mind about Tracker 2.0. 😁

Bobby — disappointed. Given everything there was to say about the younger John F. Kennedy and how people actually perceived him, it’s such a shame that Martin Sheen leaned so hard into those tired, bland clichés.

What was Redacted like?
Amanda Nguyen5 Amanda Nguyen5 Active MemberOP
134 messages
joined Dec 2007
#9 ·
Linda Parker2 said:Where are all the comments? Come on, people—I can't even make up my own mind about Tracker 2.0. 😁

Bobby — disappointed. Given everything there was to say about the younger John F. Kennedy and how people actually perceived him, it’s such a shame that Martin Sheen leaned so hard into those tired, bland clichés.

What was Redacted like?

What kind of comments, man? I’m constantly posting stuff here that either nobody reads or people just bash me for afterward, so I figured I’d just stop writing altogether.
Whether it's the second festival or whatever, people either don't show up or they just love to complain—but they realized long ago that the best move is to just shut up and stop writing.

Watched:

"The Smiling Lady Beudet" - Germaine Dulac - interesting enough, but without sound or subtitles (at least English ones, because I’m not about to sit there guessing what they're saying in French when I don't know the language) it was pretty exhausting.
"Girl in Uniform" - Leontina Sagan - almost brilliant. At the very least, it was excellent.
"Dancing, Girl, Dancing" - Dorothy Arzner - easy on the eyes, interesting story, good vibes.
"Orlando" - Sally Potter - the idea is solid (well, the book is solid), but the execution is weak. A bit pretentious and honestly, kind of a letdown.
"Tracker 2.0" - Alex Cox - I haven't seen "Tracker" or anything else by Cox, but this was top-tier stuff. The camera work and directing parody the genre brutally at times, and that final sequence where they shoot off the names of Leoneov's stuntmen as a parody of actual bullets is hilarious. Positive vibes here.

I couldn't make it to "Bobby" or "Redacted" because Antonioni's films were playing over in Beverly Hills at the same time. I'm also going to have to miss Seidl ("Import/Export") and Sokurov ("Alexandra"), much to my huge disappointment, but that's just how it goes.

Tomorrow I'm still debating whether to catch the Chantal Akerman film. It gets high marks everywhere and even made it into that famous book... "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die." My only gripe is that it runs for 200 minutes, but that's not even the main issue—it's that Antonioni is on in the evening, so I'm wondering if I can actually stomach two heavy hitters in one day.

I saw Polimac once and Mima Simić constantly. Since he deals with gender studies anyway, I bet the next Chronicle will have a report on the Human Rights Watch Film Festival regarding the women's programming.

Overall impression is way worse than I initially thought:
1. All the side program films generally lack subtitles, which means I have to hunt down Swinton's lines whenever they start getting fancy with Victorian speech.
2. The first Germaine Dulac film was shown completely silent (mostly, anyway; before every side screening, they go on stage and give these intros like, "We couldn't get this or that to work, so we had to show the film anyway because better late than never"... seriously, I heard that at almost every single screening.
3. Everything is being played off a DVD, which means a small screen and a crappy feel. Total waste.
4. The scheduling is a disaster—Antonioni is in Beverly Hills, and college finals are in full swing (a few hardcore cinephiles chose studying over the Human Rights Film Festival, which tells you everything you need to know).

Anyway, if you can, go see Seidl and Sokurov. The Gianvito and Aaltonen films look interesting too, if you're looking at the main lineup.
As for the side programs, you know the drill—Varda and Jan Švankmajer are must-sees, and tomorrow it's Akerman, if you're into that sort of thing.
stormygardener83 stormygardener83 Member
18 messages
joined Oct 2007
#10 ·
Tracker 2.0 was actually great—the camera work, the dialogue, even the acting was top-tier. We all had a good laugh, didn't we?

A genuinely pleasant surprise, honestly.
Harold Howard6 Harold Howard6 Newcomer
9 messages
joined Sep 2009
#11 ·
Excuse me?? Tracker 2.0 was excellent????? Come on, people, you have to be joking me!

Look, if those two—and that girl too—actually think they can act... it was absolutely dreadful! From the way they stared into the camera to that constant smirking while they spoke, and don't even get me started on the script or the dialogue! I mean, it’s supposed to be a road movie, so I guess we have to endure a few scenes of pushing a car around because, heaven forbid, it's a road movie and that’s just what happens in these things when you're traveling! It was overacted and overdone in every single sense. And please, let's not try to play the "it's a parody" card; if it were actually a parody, it would have made me laugh, and besides, a parody is supposed to be a parody *of* something! What exactly was this supposed to be mocking?

I was completely exhausted by the constant repetition; it felt like the screenwriter thought he had stumbled upon something profound and just wouldn't leave us alone, insisting on ruining everything with these incredibly detailed explanations, repeating the same point at least ten more times! And then there are those ridiculous scenes where a guy at a gas station says his name is Forbisher. You listen to them one by one, with that exaggerated acting, a close-up, a quick cut from one face to another: first—Forbisher?! second—Forbisher??! third—Forbisher???! And then the irritated viewer—Forbisher???!!! Honestly, that was the only decent moment in the whole thing.

Sure, great job—minimal budget, minimal script, whatever—but maybe instead of that, they could have invested in something else, like actual talent or effort, I don't know. The worst part is that I actually liked the premise...
It reminds me of that old joke:
—Have you heard about the five-year-old girl who played chess against ten Grandmasters??!
—No, so what happened??
—Well, she lost to all of them..
feralgardener59 feralgardener59 Member
13 messages
joined Jun 2010
#12 ·
Amanda Nguyen5 said:What kind of comments, man? I’m constantly posting stuff here that either nobody reads or people just bash me for afterward, so I figured I’d just stop writing altogether.
Whether it's the second festival or whatever, people either don't show up or they just love to complain—but they realized long ago that the best move is to just shut up and stop writing.

Watched:

"The Smiling Lady Beudet" - Germaine Dulac - interesting enough, but without sound or subtitles (at least English ones, because I’m not about to sit there guessing what they're saying in French when I don't know the language) it was pretty exhausting.
"Girl in Uniform" - Leontina Sagan - almost brilliant. At the very least, it was excellent.
"Dancing, Girl, Dancing" - Dorothy Arzner - easy on the eyes, interesting story, good vibes.
"Orlando" - Sally Potter - the idea is solid (well, the book is solid), but the execution is weak. A bit pretentious and honestly, kind of a letdown.
"Tracker 2.0" - Alex Cox - I haven't seen "Tracker" or anything else by Cox, but this was top-tier stuff. The camera work and directing parody the genre brutally at times, and that final sequence where they shoot off the names of Leoneov's stuntmen as a parody of actual bullets is hilarious. Positive vibes here.

I couldn't make it to "Bobby" or "Redacted" because Antonioni's films were playing over in Beverly Hills at the same time. I'm also going to have to miss Seidl ("Import/Export") and Sokurov ("Alexandra"), much to my huge disappointment, but that's just how it goes.

Tomorrow I'm still debating whether to catch the Chantal Akerman film. It gets high marks everywhere and even made it into that famous book... "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die." My only gripe is that it runs for 200 minutes, but that's not even the main issue—it's that Antonioni is on in the evening, so I'm wondering if I can actually stomach two heavy hitters in one day.

I saw Polimac once and Mima Simić constantly. Since he deals with gender studies anyway, I bet the next Chronicle will have a report on the Human Rights Watch Film Festival regarding the women's programming.

Overall impression is way worse than I initially thought:
1. All the side program films generally lack subtitles, which means I have to hunt down Swinton's lines whenever they start getting fancy with Victorian speech.
2. The first Germaine Dulac film was shown completely silent (mostly, anyway; before every side screening, they go on stage and give these intros like, "We couldn't get this or that to work, so we had to show the film anyway because better late than never"... seriously, I heard that at almost every single screening.
3. Everything is being played off a DVD, which means a small screen and a crappy feel. Total waste.
4. The scheduling is a disaster—Antonioni is in Beverly Hills, and college finals are in full swing (a few hardcore cinephiles chose studying over the Human Rights Film Festival, which tells you everything you need to know).

Anyway, if you can, go see Seidl and Sokurov. The Gianvito and Aaltonen films look interesting too, if you're looking at the main lineup.
As for the side programs, you know the drill—Varda and Jan Švankmajer are must-sees, and tomorrow it's Akerman, if you're into that sort of thing.

God, what amateur hour. 👎 They really thought they did something with that cheap Russian-style "ruble" aesthetic, but if there aren't any subtitles, you're just out of luck. 😁
Amanda Nguyen5 Amanda Nguyen5 Active MemberOP
134 messages
joined Dec 2007
#13 ·
feralgardener59 said:God, what amateur hour. 👎 They really thought they did something with that cheap Russian-style "ruble" aesthetic, but if there aren't any subtitles, you're just out of luck. 😁


Alright, just go back and read my first point one more time.
stormygardener83 stormygardener83 Member
18 messages
joined Oct 2007
#14 ·
Harold Howard6 said:Excuse me?? Tracker 2.0 was excellent????? Come on, people, you have to be joking me!

Look, if those two—and that girl too—actually think they can act... it was absolutely dreadful! From the way they stared into the camera to that constant smirking while they spoke, and don't even get me started on the script or the dialogue! I mean, it’s supposed to be a road movie, so I guess we have to endure a few scenes of pushing a car around because, heaven forbid, it's a road movie and that’s just what happens in these things when you're traveling! It was overacted and overdone in every single sense. And please, let's not try to play the "it's a parody" card; if it were actually a parody, it would have made me laugh, and besides, a parody is supposed to be a parody *of* something! What exactly was this supposed to be mocking?

I was completely exhausted by the constant repetition; it felt like the screenwriter thought he had stumbled upon something profound and just wouldn't leave us alone, insisting on ruining everything with these incredibly detailed explanations, repeating the same point at least ten more times! And then there are those ridiculous scenes where a guy at a gas station says his name is Forbisher. You listen to them one by one, with that exaggerated acting, a close-up, a quick cut from one face to another: first—Forbisher?! second—Forbisher??! third—Forbisher???! And then the irritated viewer—Forbisher???!!! Honestly, that was the only decent moment in the whole thing.

Sure, great job—minimal budget, minimal script, whatever—but maybe instead of that, they could have invested in something else, like actual talent or effort, I don't know. The worst part is that I actually liked the premise...
It reminds me of that old joke:
—Have you heard about the five-year-old girl who played chess against ten Grandmasters??!
—No, so what happened??
—Well, she lost to all of them..


Why go overboard? Just because something is new or unconventional doesn't mean it's inherently bad...

Personally, I always enjoy spotting fresh faces—I think the cast did a stellar job, especially the Mexican actor.

And I actually loved the idea of speeding up the camera during scene transitions instead of just cutting them out entirely like most movies do. It felt different.

The humor landed for me too, aside from a few jokes that were a bit too on the nose (like the "it's our oil, just happens to be under their desert" bit). I really dug that silly dialogue—that whole bit about leaning into bad humor with the "subliminal message."

ps. It’s not Frobisher, it’s Fritz Frobisher—meaning Furtwangler.😁
Timothy Wells6 Timothy Wells6 Newcomer
2 messages
joined Mar 2009
#15 ·
I'm honestly just let down by both the films and the whole organization. Give me some comfort, Timothy Wells6
Harold Howard6 Harold Howard6 Newcomer
9 messages
joined Sep 2009
#16 ·
stormygardener83 As specified by Timothy Wells6:
Is it really necessary to be so extreme about it? I don't think introducing something new or unconventional necessarily means it has to be bad.

Exactly, though I wouldn't say it's a given...

stormygardener83 said:Why go overboard? Just because something is new or unconventional doesn't mean it's inherently bad...

Personally, I always enjoy spotting fresh faces—I think the cast did a stellar job, especially the Mexican actor.

And I actually loved the idea of speeding up the camera during scene transitions instead of just cutting them out entirely like most movies do. It felt different.

The humor landed for me too, aside from a few jokes that were a bit too on the nose (like the "it's our oil, just happens to be under their desert" bit). I really dug that silly dialogue—that whole bit about leaning into bad humor with the "subliminal message."

ps. It’s not Frobisher, it’s Fritz Frobisher—meaning Furtwangler.😁

What kind of joke is that supposed to be? Honestly, I don't know. It feels much simpler to my mind to just call it what it was—bad humor. Besides, if you’re actually going to attempt a parody of bad humor, you really ought to have some top-tier comedic timing to pull it off.

stormygardener83 said:Why go overboard? Just because something is new or unconventional doesn't mean it's inherently bad...

Personally, I always enjoy spotting fresh faces—I think the cast did a stellar job, especially the Mexican actor.

And I actually loved the idea of speeding up the camera during scene transitions instead of just cutting them out entirely like most movies do. It felt different.

The humor landed for me too, aside from a few jokes that were a bit too on the nose (like the "it's our oil, just happens to be under their desert" bit). I really dug that silly dialogue—that whole bit about leaning into bad humor with the "subliminal message."

ps. It’s not Frobisher, it’s Fritz Frobisher—meaning Furtwangler.😁

My apologies, I can barely recall any of it—even though they’ve replayed it countless times.
dustyseal21 dustyseal21 Newcomer
2 messages
joined Feb 2008
#17 ·
Timothy Wells6 said:I'm honestly just let down by both the films and the whole organization. Give me some comfort, Timothy Wells6

Look, Timothy Wells6, I am right there with you. Running a screening off some random DVD in a theater? That’s just amateur hour—totally unacceptable. I don't even know what kind of excuses they could possibly dig up to make this okay.
Carl Sullivan6 Carl Sullivan6 Newcomer
9 messages
joined Feb 2008
#18 ·
dustyseal21 said:Look, Timothy Wells6, I am right there with you. Running a screening off some random DVD in a theater? That’s just amateur hour—totally unacceptable. I don't even know what kind of excuses they could possibly dig up to make this okay.

I agree, it’s just not right. At this rate, any cinephile in town could host their own festival—just grab your DVD collection, head down to the local independent cinema, and ask if you can book a slot in March to run your own programming.
rustyseal40 rustyseal40 Member
12 messages
joined Feb 2008
#19 ·
Carl Sullivan6 said:I agree, it’s just not right. At this rate, any cinephile in town could host their own festival—just grab your DVD collection, head down to the local independent cinema, and ask if you can book a slot in March to run your own programming.

Now, this has truly incensed me. 👎 It isn't merely a matter of any movie buff being able to stage an event using a home collection of DVDs—and frankly, during one screening this past Saturday, I noticed the HBO logo flickering in the corner of the screen, and today’s feature was clearly just something pulled straight from PBS—no, the issue is that any enthusiast could organize a "festival" for $10 the negligible cost of a stack of blank discs, especially since these organizers haven't even bothered to secure original DVD copies. Truly impressive work!
Carl Sullivan6 Carl Sullivan6 Newcomer
9 messages
joined Feb 2008
#20 ·
rustyseal40 said:Now, this has truly incensed me. 👎 It isn't merely a matter of any movie buff being able to stage an event using a home collection of DVDs—and frankly, during one screening this past Saturday, I noticed the HBO logo flickering in the corner of the screen, and today’s feature was clearly just something pulled straight from PBS—no, the issue is that any enthusiast could organize a "festival" for $10 the negligible cost of a stack of blank discs, especially since these organizers haven't even bothered to secure original DVD copies. Truly impressive work!

And it isn't just that. It’s unfair to the other festivals actually licensing films. I doubt Sundance or SXSW would ever settle for playing DVDs instead of legitimate prints. Plus, it's like they don't even provide previews for the movies.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads